Quakers’ Ignorance of Quakerism

Quakers’ Ignorance of Quakerism.

I was saddened and hurt when vocal ministry that I was moved to make in a recent meeting for worship was argued against in later ‘vocal ministry’ and in the ‘after-words’ period. The critics included two long-standing members, but I was supported by a well-respected member of our Area Meeting. What I said I believe to be simply factual. The drive to minister was because I am led to believe that ignorance of these facts is a danger to our Society. People are being led into our Society unaware of its true nature.

My ministry commenced with a comment that I had been reading the chapter in Quaker Faith and Practice that we were urged by Sufferings to read this month, and that it included many quotations by still-living, leading members of our Society who frequently referred to the teachings of Jesus. I went on to assert that our accepted Quaker values owed their origin to Christ’s teaching – teaching which had become so absorbed by our Society and our wider culture that we took it for granted and were unaware of its origin. Referring to the Good Samaritan story, I suggested that no-one nowadays would criticize a person for teaching that to help a needy, injured stranger was an admirable act. I said that a student may know nothing of the development of eduction philosophy and techniques over the centuries, nor anything of the philosophy and politics that shaped the curriculum to which they were subjected, and that similarly many Friends were unaware of the roots of Quakerism. They understood Quakerism to be what they witnessed in meetings such as our present one. They witnessed concern about today’s injustices and militarism, they met sociable people, but they did not know about Quakerism’s Christian basis nor that our Society is an active member of the Christian community.

The opposer who spoke during the worship period meeting demonstrated this ignorance. First, of course, is that he defied the convention that we do not argue during worship. If apparent ‘ministry’ seems unacceptable one simple lets it pass, maybe to express one’s concern to an Elder later. When I mentioned this later he retorted that he was entitled to express his opinion! Secondly, he missed the point that I was considering the Society’s position, not his nor any any individual’s. To say a society’s position is Christian is not to say every member does or should identify themselves as a Christian. It is all too common to view a proposition from an individualistic viewpoint. One accepts that there is a wide range of beliefs among members of our Society. (As indeed there is in other denominations.) He argued that the Cadburys by (as he asserted) coming to meeting in Rolls Royces showed that they were not Christians. Presumably he meant to imply that this proved Quakers are not Christians, and therefore what I had said was wrong. The other member, who spoke during after-words, was very obscure but clearly opposed what I’d said. (On a previous occasion he took down a notice I’d put on the board – the Bideford Statement together with its endorsement by our AM Elders – on the grounds that it was ‘inflamatory’. )

I believe it is wrong of us to hide the fact that our Society is a religious one and that our religion is a form of Christianity, albeit rather untypical. Typically, members are God-centred, Spirit-led, “humble learners in the school of Christ”.

Many people’s hang-up is over the word ‘God’. I believe we ought to make clear that Quakers have never accepted the image (metaphor) of God as being a male control freak, jealous, angry, and obsessed with sin. Or anything like that. Quakerism does not claim to know what God is, but urges its members to trust that values such as love and truth are the ‘leadings of God’. Also that Quakerism’s testimonies are not personal development goals but the effect of commitment to a form of worship which allows God to teach and transform people. Early Friends were convinced of this by their own experience, but now it is apparent that newcomers to Quakerism need to have it clearly explained. I believe that to be the responsibility of our Elders.

(This is the essay I meant to head with the invitation for readers to comment – not only supportively)

– Stephen Petter, Bristol, 11/7/16.